Introduction

Grant programs, when done right, are a great way to fund initiatives that help developers and researchers bring their ideas to life and grow a project’s ecosystem. With the rising number of grant applications, reviewers should have a clear framework to evaluate them effectively.

Reviewing grant applications isn’t just about following a process; it’s about finding applications that can have a real impact. The challenge is to identify applications with a strong value proposition, a solid plan for implementation and an appropriate budget.

This article offers a guide to help reviewers assess Web3 grant applications. By focusing on important aspects like problem definition, KPIs, budget justification, and more, reviewers can support the most promising and well-prepared applicants.

We will cover important points to consider when reviewing grant applications. We hope that this will enable you to distinguish between good and bad applications.

Pay attention to these details when reviewing a grant application:

1. Proper Grammar and Spelling:

Check the application for grammar mistakes and spelling errors. While English might not be the author’s first language, it’s important that the application is clear and understandable. Frequent errors may indicate a lack of attention to detail, raising concerns about the quality of the suggested services itself.

2. Explaining the Problem:

Assess whether the author has clearly defined the problem their application addresses. A strong application should not only state the service but also explain why it matters within the context of the ecosystem. Look for evidence that the applicant understands the problem deeply and is not simply offering a generic solution.

3. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

Check if the application includes well-defined, measurable KPIs. These indicators should align with your project’s strategic objectives. The lack of clear KPIs may indicate that the author has not thought carefully about how to measure the success or impact of their service, or that they may not know what your project's priorities are.

4. References and Credentials:

Confirm the references and background information provided to estimate the author’s capability to execute the described service. The application should demonstrate the author’s relevant experience and successes in similar projects.

5. Budget Justification:

Analyze the suggested budget to ensure the requested funds are appropriate and well-justified. The author should provide a detailed breakdown of how the budget will be allocated and explain why these expenditures are necessary or appropriate for their service.

6. Supporting Sources:

Look for reliable sources and documentation that support the author’s claims. This can include links to additional documents, data, or case studies that enhance the application’s trustworthiness and depth.

7. Innovation and Uniqueness:

Consider the novelty and distinctiveness of the proposed service. Does the author introduce new ideas or approaches that set it apart from existing or competing services?

8. Risk Management:

Look at how the applicant addresses potential risks and challenges. Does the application include a risk management plan or strategies to mitigate possible issues that could arise during the project’s development and implementation? This supports that the author knows their services and the associated risks well and, above all, is transparent about them.

Having a standardized application form helps

You will be doing yourself a favor if you provide applicants with a standardized application form. This form should be divided into sections such as problem statement, solution, KPIs, budget, etc. This eases the burden of comparisons, and you can be certain the applicant will provide the necessary information you require. Most funding infrastructure providers have an in-built application form you can use. If you have a self-developed grants program, you can use Google Forms or Airtable. For those more technically inclined, a GitHub template offers an excellent solution.

‍

How Lemma can help

Lemma can assist you with the grant review process by performing a quick initial review of incoming applications to assess whether they are worth considering. We can help you set up the necessary infrastructure for a scalable review process, or help you leverage existing infrastructures such as Grants Stack, Questbook or CharmVerse. 

‍

Conclusion

Evaluating Web3 grant applications requires a thoughtful and structured approach to ensure that the most promising projects receive the support they need. By paying close attention to the key points outlined in this article, reviewers can make informed decisions:

- proper grammar and spelling,

- clear problem definition,

- well-defined KPIs,

- credible references,

- budget justification,

- supporting sources, and

- innovation 

And by applying these criteria, reviewers can distinguish between well-prepared, impactful proposals and those that may not yet be ready for funding. This ensures that grant resources are allocated effectively, driving forward meaningful advancements in your ecosystem.

‍